Museveni Joins the “10,000 Club”

On June 15, Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni quietly marked 10,000 days in power with little notice from the international community. Museveni has been president since 1986 after the fall of the infamous Idi Amin Dada and the subsequent demise of Milton Obote’s second term.

As one of the longest-serving presidents in Africa, Museveni belongs to a gerontocracy full of controversial leaders. In Sub-Saharan Africa, only Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Equitorial Guinea’s Obiang and Angola’s Dos Santos have been in power longer than Uganda’s aging autocrat. Each of these politicians stands accused of autocratic practices and varying degrees of corruption and abuse of power.

When Museveni began his term in office, he was lauded by Western leaders like Bill Clinton as part of the vanguard of a new generation of African leaders that also included figures like Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, among others. Although they initially received a warm reception from the West, many members of this coterie are now subject to harsh criticism. Zenawi, who passed away last year, was subject to numerous allegations of repression and human rights abuses. Museveni and Kagame’s involvement in the destabilization of Congo and other conflicts in the Great Lakes region have sparked an outcry from the international community.

However, despite these critiques, Museveni’s legacy is not entirely negative. As president, he has accomplished remarkable things. Uganda has made significant headway in the reduction of HIV/AIDS and has made laudable efforts towards economic progress with the help of international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank. Although Museveni has a history of suppression of opposition parties, he has been a welcome friend to Washington in light of security concerns in the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa - especially in Somalia. In 1997, Madeleine Albright referred to him as a “‘beacon of hope” who runs a 'uni-party democracy.’“

However, our security interests cannot gloss over Museveni’s escalating abuse of power. In 2006, he abolished presidential term limits just before national elections. Now, former Ugandan army General David Sejusa has accused Museveni of grooming his son Muhoozi Kainerugab to succeed him and called for opposition to the alleged plan. Following the publication of his claims in two newspapers, Sejusa fled to the UK, but is reportedly considering returning back to Uganda to present a political challenge to Museveni.

Although government spokespeople have denied the validity of Sejusa’s plans, in May, police shut down two newspapers, the Daily Monitor and Red Pepper, that published articles regarding Sejusa’s claims. Sejusa remains under investigation for“civil criminality” and violations of military law.

In light of these developments and the fact that Uganda has not had a peaceful political transition since independence in 1962, a power struggle may be brewing. As freedom of expression and opposition remain suppressed, one must wonder how long Ugandans will remain content with the current state of affairs.

Benefits of Hosting the World Cup: A Case Study of Brazil

Every few years, countries around the world engage in a fierce round of competition to host the FIFA World Cup. Aside from the global prestige, many nations believe strongly in the Cup’s capacity to attract massive revenue streams to tourism, transportation and retail sectors and spur modernization.

In order to attract such economic growth, host nations must first invest enormous sums in infrastructure development. The costs of covering these upgrades can be staggering. While Germany spent $1.87 billion on stadiums for the 2006 World Cup and South Africa spent $1.48 billion on arenas, Brazil stands to spend approximately $3.68 billion on modernization and construction of various facilities.TIME estimates that by next year’s games, the state will have invested over $14 billion in the World Cup.

Some commentators claim that sporting events like the World Cup have net or negative benefits for their host countries rather than the positive benefits that public officials frequently tout. Inspecting the post-World Cup trajectories of many former host nations, these critics may have a point.

According to CNN, “eight of the 10 stadiums built or renovated in Japan for the 2002 World Cup lose between $2 million and $6 million a year, the balance of which is picked up by Japanese taxpayers.”

Initial gains in hospitality-related sectors are often short-lived. While events coordinated for the benefit of tourists do provide jobs, these frequently low-paid, temporary positions, which do not foster skill development, are not the solution to the unemployment crisis plaguing many developing nations.

In unequal societies, the impacts of any economic gain may be concentrated among small segments of the population. Inequitable distribution of wealth and lavish spending on the World Cup lead thousands of South Africans to march in Durban over 4 years ago protest FIFA and government spending on the World Cup,

Now history repeats itself in Brazil, a country that is also sharply divided along race and class lines.

In the 2012 Human Development Index, Brazil ranked 85th out of 186 countries. As a society with high levels of inequality, poverty and uneven social cohesion, the soaring costs of Brazil’s World Cup expenditures have sparked an uproar among its citizens.

Hundreds of thousands of Brazilians in over 25 cities have taken to the streets to protest the exorbitant spending on the World Cup, high taxes, corruption and a lack of infrastructure maintenance or quality provision of public goods like education and healthcare.

The protests may threaten President Dilma Rousseff’s re-election prospects next year. A recent Datafolha poll put her approval rating at 57%, a marked decline from her 65% approval rating this March. Considering that former President Lula de Silva left office with an 83% approval rating, Rousseff’s continually slipping approval rating show she is not faring well with Brazilian voters. However, she has publicly supported the protests as a sign of the democracy’s vitality and pledges to work towards easing social tensions and improving services.

Despite Rousseff’s promises, even if investments in events like the World Cup fail to pay off, they often cast a long and terrible shadow over host nations’ economies. Numerous economists and policy analysts have speculated that the massive costs associated with the 2004 Athens Olympics may have triggered Greece’s economic decline. It is imperative that future host nations tread carefully in consideration of their deficits before pursuing such large-scale ventures. 

The Relevance of the African Union at 50

On May 24, 1963 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at the founding meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the fathers of the African independence movement gathered to craft a blue-print of continental unity, a tangible representation of the philosophy of Pan-Africanism. 

Kwame Nkrumah proclaimed “we must unite now or perish… the masses of the people of Africa are crying for unity.”

Despite these fierce words, half a century later, after decades of border disputes, conflict and flawed leadership across the continent, we are left wondering: is the AU still relevant today?

The original agenda for the OAU included proposals to create a common African financial market, an African currency, an African monetary zone and an African central bank. To date, none of these goals have been accomplished. 

Today, as government and state representatives begin to gather in Addis Ababa, where it all began 50 years ago, it is time to re-examine the AU’s commitment to its lofty goals and reflect on how it might continue to stay true to its mission.

The theme of this year’s summit is “Pan-Africanism and African Renaissance”, a fitting title meant to gently remind nations of the ideals of Pan-Africanism that ungird the organization and renew a commitment to these principles.

In recent years, the eight main regional organizations such as the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), East African Community (EAC) and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have enjoyed increasing levels of influence and made inroads towards political and economic regional integration. However, does the emphasis on the regional networks compromise the AU’s focus if they work independently rather than inter-dependently? 

Although these regional organizations can harness political power, their small scale would be eclipsed by a continent-wide partnership facilitated by the AU. Rather than focusing at the regional level, we need large-scale collaboration. Only when the AU puts some teeth in its initiatives will African nations be able to harness their political power on an international stage that often minimizes their interests. A renewed commitment to partnership will also aid in improving the levels of intra-regional trade, which lags far behind other regions of the world such as the ASEAN and EU nations. 

Nevertheless, despite these critiques of a lack of cohesion, the AU has done commendable work in the area of peacekeeping by playing pivotal roles in conflict settings like Somalia and Sudan. 

To move towards increased cooperation capable of spurring peace and development, the AU must develop a cogent, common ideological framework that allows for discussions based on a coherent moral foundation. In order to expedite this process, nations must work draft action plans that emphasize standards of behavior to which they must hold one another accountable. Otherwise, crafting a sustainable 2063 vision will be impossible.

The Irony Behind Kenya’s Elections

At 50 years old, Kenya is a young country. But it is a nation that has been groomed as the precocious child of East Africa. For decades, Western nations like the United States saw Kenya as a bulwark of stability in the oft-turbulent region.

The 2007 election shattered that picture. Back then, multiparty elections had just been introduced to the country’s political system. That change, in combination with voting along ethnic lines and an institutionalized culture of corruption, led to a disputed electoral race between the incumbent, Mwai Kibaki, and Raila Odinga, formerly of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM). After Kibaki allegedly manipulated the election results, disgruntled Odinga supporters took to the streets with their grievances. Those initial protests were followed by ethnic violence, primarily between members of the Luo, Kikuyu and Kalenjin tribes — and the resultant deaths of thousands, not to mention massive internal displacement. With this background of violence and tribalism, Western audiences waited with bated breath to see if last month’s Kenyan elections would have a similarly bloody outcome.

As far as we can tell, it has not. Soon after the 2007 election violence, top diplomats from across the globe — including then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, then-United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and then-East African Community Secretary-General Juma Mwapachu — arrived in Kenya to help organize negotiations for a transitional government. In 2010, the nation adopted a new constitution which including provisions for a more decentralised political system, the creation of a second chamber of parliament and a land commission to settle past and present land disputes. These political steps forward and the International Criminal Court’s decision to indict the “Ocampo Six” appeased international observers and looked like symbols of Kenya’s commitment to justice. Although technological glitches with the electronic voting systems led Odinga to contest the results of the election, Kenya’s Supreme Court has upheld Kenyatta as the rightful victor. Notwithstanding small bouts of violence in Kiberia and Kisumu, the election has gone smoothly.

Except for one tiny detail:  the group of people to be tried by the ICC for their involvement in the post-election violence of 2007 includes current President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta, who was just sworn in yesterday, and his running mate, William Ruto. In an ironic twist, despite their current political alliance, the two are accused of organizing attacks on each other’s ethnic groups following the 2007 election. In spite of the fact that Kenyatta’s legal woes were well-known to the Kenyan and international communities at the time of the election, the situation did not seem to faze this year’s voters — Kenyatta won 50.07% of the vote.

Many African nations have long looked at the ICC with an air of disdain, arguing that the court unjustly stigmatizes Africans. For the ICC, the Kenyan case is the ultimate prize. No longer will the court be relegated to simply prosecuting war criminals. With the trials of the Ocampo Six, the ICC stands to acquire a significant amount of legitimacy.

That is, if Kenyans will let them.

In 2010, the Kenyan parliament voted to withdraw Kenya from the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC. Key witnesses dropped out of trials. Since then, Kenyatta’s case has become the first case to be tried by the ICC without the accused in custody. And back home, Kenyatta’s ICC trial seems to have only helped him politically, as millions of Kenyans are willing to stand up in support of his claims of innocence.

Although countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have issued vague warnings about the political consequences of electing a candidate like Kenyatta, most major Western democracies have congratulated President-elect Kenyatta on his victory. A precarious game of chess is being played in order to balance Western interests in Kenya with the desire to support the ICC’s mission. Yet in the acknowledgment that Kenya is a vital key power player in the war on terror and the congratulations being issued to Kenyatta, the West may implicitly acknowledge that it needs Kenya no matter its moral qualms — and Kenya, as a developing country, still needs the West.

The Case for an African Pope

Originally published by Yale Daily News Weekend Edition on February 17, 2013

Even as Western churches close their doors in the face of rising budget concerns, fewer men join the priesthood and we see more empty pews, Christianity continues to thrive in regions like Latin America and Africa.

Latin Americans and Africans make up over half of the global population of Catholics in the world today. The African brand of Christianity, in particular, appears to attract many because of the syncretism of African culture and dynamism of church services. In populations seeking answers to phenomena like poverty, war and disease, Christianity is an attractive prospect. In a 2011 visit to Benin, Pope Benedict XVI referred to Africa as “an immense spiritual ‘lung’ for a humanity that appears to be in a crisis of faith and hope.” In the eyes of the most recent pope, Africa is the new frontier of Christianity — the place that will renew global faith.

So considering that perception and Pope Benedict’s recent announcement of his retirement, the time appears ripe for a sub-Saharan African pope. (The call for an African pope is a bit of a misnomer, as three popes from the earlier days of the church were of Berber origin). Long gone are the days of Eurocentric Catholicism. Nowadays, the church also must cope with the growing waves of evangelism as well as continual interaction with other major religions like Islam. A pope from sub-Saharan Africa might be adept at conquering these new challenges.

The rapid growth of Catholicism in Africa suggests that Ghana’s Cardinal Peter Turkson and Nigeria’s Cardinal Francis Arinze may be top contenders when the papal conclave, the meeting of the College of Cardinals, convenes at the end of the month to elect the new pontiff.

Still, despite the calls for an African pope from the developing world, some church scholars claim that the possibility may be unlikely considering the distribution of cardinals is heavily concentrated in Europe. The 118 cardinals who will choose the new pope are also in running for the position. And, considering the global outlook of the papacy, nationality may not figure high in the conclave decision. With Pope Benedict’s resignation, the first in over 600 years, linked to age, the new pope will need to be healthy and young enough to fulfill his papacy. Thus, age may outweigh other considerations like nationality in determining succession.

However, bearing in mind the cloud of secrecy that shrouds the conclave, we may never know the exact factors that lead to the ultimate decision. All we can be certain about is that the new pope must be prepared to battle the issues facing the Catholic Church in the modern era.

The Balance Sheet: Foreign Policy in the 2012 Election

Like his predecessor’s administration, the Obama administration has been indelibly marked by its role in Middle Eastern politics. From highs like the assassination of Osama bin Laden and the successful intervention in Libya to lows like accusations of fumbling the response to the protests in Tahir Spring and widely criticized drone attacks in Pakistan, the priorities of this administration in its approach to the war of terror are clear - a combination of rigid stances and flexing of military muscle. 21st century American politics has come to mean fighting fear mongering with only more fear mongering and violence. 

While Obama has attempted to distance himself from Bush on most issues, he has shared a remarkable amount of policy continuity with “W”. Early attempts in his term to distance himself from the Bush Doctrine of preemptive action and aggressive use of American military and economic power largely failed. Guantanamo Bay continues to remain open and efforts to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 terrorists in civilian court were eventually thwarted. While Obama has admittedly made positive contributions to the worldwide perception of America, he has not made substantial inroads in the Middle East where American policies continue to be reviled by the vast majority of citizens.

I say this all not to critique Obama harshly, but rather to put things in perspective. College campuses, especially campuses like Yale in liberal strongholds like Connecticut, tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic. While the criticisms of our opponent are often apt, we tend to overlook the flaws of our own candidate.

Despite the critiques that can be made regarding various aspects of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, a number of positives might tip the balance sheet for most voters who place foreign policy at the top of their list of priorities for the election. According to a July 2012 Gallup poll, 42% of voters list “dealing with terrorism and international threats” as a priority in this election, thus it is an issue that any presidential candidate must be well-versed in. Given increasing globalization and the presence of multilateral organizations, Obama’s personal and academic background make him an ideal leader. Moreover, his natural sensitivity to foreign relations have been augmented by the extensive skills of Vice President Biden, former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who accrued foreign policy experience during her time as First Lady and as a junior senator. With Clinton poised to retire after this term, Senator John Kerry, the current Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as well as a frequent envoy to countries in the Middle East and Africa. 

In comparison with these foreign policy heavyweights, the Romney campaign seems to be severely lacking. Aside from his experience as a Mormon missionary in France in the late 1960s and interactions with foreign investors through Bain Capital, Romney’s foreign policy expertise can only be described as virtually nonexistent. His absence of diplomatic skills was painfully obvious during his summertrips to London for the Olympic Games and to Israel. In London, his series of gaffes was the subject of derision from pundits and politicians from both sides of the pond. After Romney told NBC News that “a few things that were disconcerting”, British Prime Minister David Cameron responded tersely saying: “Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere.” Romney continued his string of faux pas in Israel when seemed to insinuate that Israel was more economically successful than Palestine due to cultural differences. 

Romney’s foreign policy stances betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of power in a 21st century world. His approach to international affairs is not only isolationist and antiquated, but encourages the “might is right” approach to foreign policy that incited worldwide hatred and scorn during the Bush era.

The informed citizen must be cognizant of the fallacies of both candidates. While holding Obama accountable for failed promises and diplomatic failings, we also must accord him respect for steering us through four years without a domestic terror attack. Simultaneously, we must be wary of a candidate who reaches back for the days of an America that overuses its military and economic might.

It is time for both candidates to openly acknowledge that America occupies a different place in the world than it did over 60 years ago. With Mitt Romney painting Russia as America’s biggest threat, we appear to be grapsing at straws to return to a world that is gone. World War II and the Cold War left us as the de-facto guiding light of peace, democracy and diplomacy. However, as political and economic unions form worldwide and emerging economies gain leverage in the marketplace, we have slipped from being the dominant leader to being a powerful voice among many.

And that position is not inherently bad. In fact, it could serve as an encouragement for increased trade with the US in a time where we see more countries increasingly shifting towards business with China because of wide availability of capital as well as the perception that the Chinese treat their dignitaries as equals. 

Instead of trying - and often failing - to manipulate the world to meet our own ends, perhaps it is time to take a new approach by capitalizing on America’s strengths and working on our weaknesses. While new technology is constantly being developed on American soil, we face a serious uphill battle to remain at the cutting edge if our educational system continues to remain sub-par and American students struggle to compete with talented schoolchildren in other nations. We need to develop new strategies instead of living in the valley of nostalgia. We need to accept decline and learn how to manipulate it to land on our feet. 

It is time for campaigns and debate moderators to more openly address the reality of the world we live in and develop appropriate military and diplomatic strategies to address this new era. However, despite its shortcomings on the foreign policy front, the Obama campaign is better equipped to handle this challenge.